25.3
26.2 %
52.5 %
Indicators in the Citation impact, Journal impact and Co‑publishing tabs are based on Web of Science publications only. Corresponding Scopus indicators can be found under the Scopus tab.
Overall Web of Science coverage for peer reviewed publications in this unit is poor, 26.2%.
Note that the coverage numbers for Web of Science and Scopus apply to publications in the KTH bibliometric database Bibmet. If a WoS-id or Scoupus-id from DiVA can not be matched in Bibmet, it does not count as covered.
The bibliometric indicators referred are based on publications registered in DiVA. Only publications from currently employed researchers at KTH are included. The rolling nature of this report means that it provides more of a current overview and less of a historic stable trend, since it excludes publications written by researchers that are no longer affiliated to KTH, but have been at some point in time.
Indicators in the Citation impact, Journal impact and Co‑publishing tabs are based on Web of Science publications only. Corresponding Scopus indicators can be found under the Scopus tab.
Publication data is available only after login.
| DiVA publication type | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | Publications | WoS coverage | Scopus coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article, peer review | 6.0 | 5.2 | 6.5 | 7.3 | 4.7 | 7.6 | 3.0 | 40.3 | 34.2% | 0.5 |
| Article, other | NA | NA | 1.0 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 2.0 | NA | 7.0 | 0.0% | 0.1 |
| Conference paper, peer review | 1.5 | 4.5 | 0.1 | 4.3 | 1.0 | 7.3 | 2.5 | 21.3 | 11.0% | 0.5 |
| Conference paper, other | 12.0 | 11.3 | 9.0 | 11.0 | 11.5 | 7.8 | NA | 62.7 | 0.0% | 0.0 |
| Book | 1.0 | NA | 1.3 | 0.3 | NA | 1.5 | NA | 4.2 | 12.0% | 0.1 |
| Anthology (editor) | 1.0 | NA | NA | 3.3 | NA | 0.7 | 3.2 | 8.2 | 0.0% | 0.0 |
| Chapter in book | 6.3 | 3.7 | 5.8 | 14.2 | 26.0 | 13.5 | 11.7 | 81.2 | 0.0% | 0.1 |
| Article, book review | 1.0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 60.0% | 0.0 |
| Proceeding (editor) | NA | 0.5 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0.5 | 0.0% | 0.0 |
| Report | NA | 1.9 | 1.3 | 0.5 | NA | 2.0 | NA | 5.8 | 0.0% | 0.0 |
| Doctoral thesis | NA | NA | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | NA | 2.0 | 7.0 | 0.0% | 0.0 |
| DiVA publication type | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | Publications | WoS coverage | Scopus coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article, peer review | 8 | 6 | 7 | 11 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 53 | 43.4% | 1 |
| Article, other | NA | NA | 1 | 5 | 1 | 2 | NA | 9 | 0.0% | 0 |
| Conference paper, peer review | 2 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 10 | 3 | 31 | 9.7% | 1 |
| Conference paper, other | 12 | 12 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 10 | NA | 67 | 0.0% | 0 |
| Book | 1 | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | 2 | NA | 6 | 16.7% | 0 |
| Anthology (editor) | 1 | NA | NA | 5 | NA | 2 | 6 | 14 | 0.0% | 0 |
| Chapter in book | 7 | 5 | 7 | 18 | 27 | 16 | 13 | 93 | 0.0% | 0 |
| Article, book review | 1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 1 | 3 | 5 | 60.0% | 0 |
| Proceeding (editor) | NA | 1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 1 | 0.0% | 0 |
| Report | NA | 6 | 2 | 1 | NA | 2 | NA | 11 | 0.0% | 0 |
| Doctoral thesis | NA | NA | 1 | 2 | 2 | NA | 2 | 7 | 0.0% | 0 |
| Publication Year | Publications | Total Citations | Average Citations | Uncited publications | Share uncited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 49.0% |
| 2015 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 44.4% |
| 2016 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 2.0 | 66.7% |
| 2017 | 2.3 | 4.7 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 64.3% |
| 2018 | 1.7 | 6.0 | 3.5 | 1.0 | 58.8% |
| Total | 11.7 | 14.9 | 1.3 | 6.7 | 57.1% |
| Publication years | Publications | Average Cf | Top 10% publications | Share Top 10% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-2016 | 6.7 | 0.55 | 0.1 | 1.9% |
| 2015-2017 | 6.6 | 0.56 | 0.1 | 1.9% |
| 2016-2018 | 6.0 | 0.71 | 0.2 | 2.8% |
| 2017-2019 | 5.6 | 0.80 | 0.2 | 3.0% |
| Total | 12.3 | 0.67 | 0.3 | 2.4% |
This table is based on Web of Science publication types Article, Proceedings paper, Review, Letter and Editorial.
Rows are based on at least 3 (full counted) publications with poor Web of Science coverage (at least 20%).
(DiVA publication types Article, peer review and Conference paper, peer review)
Indicators based on < 50 publications are considered unreliable
This table is based on Web of Science publication types Article and Review.
Rows are based on at least 9 (full counted) publications with poor Web of Science coverage (at least 33.8%).
(DiVA publication type Article, peer review)
Indicators based on < 50 publications are considered unreliable
| Publication years | Publications | Average Journal Cf | Publications in Top 20% journals | Share Top 20% journals |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-2016 | 6.7 | 0.87 | 0.4 | 5.4% |
| 2015-2017 | 6.6 | 0.83 | 0.8 | 11.4% |
| 2016-2018 | 7.0 | 0.90 | 0.7 | 9.5% |
| 2017-2019 | 6.6 | 1.08 | 1.9 | 29.4% |
| 2018-2020 | 4.7 | 1.17 | 1.4 | 30.5% |
| Total | 13.8 | 0.98 | 2.3 | 16.8% |
This table is based on Web of Science publication types Article and Review.
Rows are based on at least 9 (full counted) publications with poor Web of Science coverage (at least 31.1%).
(DiVA publication type Article, peer review)
Indicators based on < 50 publications are considered unreliable
| Publication years | Publications | Swedish non-university co-publications | Share Swedish non-university | International co-publications | Share international |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-2016 | 9 | 1 | 11.1% | 0 | 0.0% |
| 2015-2017 | 9 | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 22.2% |
| 2016-2018 | 11 | 1 | 9.1% | 3 | 27.3% |
| 2017-2019 | 12 | 1 | 8.3% | 4 | 33.3% |
| 2018-2020 | 10 | 1 | 10.0% | 3 | 30.0% |
| Total | 23 | 2 | 8.7% | 5 | 21.7% |
This table is based on Web of Science publication types Article and Review.
Rows are based on at least 9 (full counted) publications with poor Web of Science coverage (at least 37.5%).
(DiVA publication type Article, peer review)
Indicators based on < 50 publications are considered unreliable
| Country | Publications | 1-10 auth | 11-50 auth | 51-200 auth | Over 200 auth | Publications (frac) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.0 |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 |
| South Africa | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 |
| United States | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 |
| Denmark | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.3 |
| Indonesia | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.2 |
| France | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 |
| Netherlands | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 |
| Portugal | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 |
| Organization | Organization type | Country | Publications | 1-10 auth | 11-50 auth | 51-200 auth | Over 200 auth | Publications (frac) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stockholm University | University | Sweden | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.2 |
| Chalmers University of Technology | University | Sweden | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1.4 |
| University College of Art, Craft and Design | University College | Sweden | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.2 |
| Pontifical Catholic University of Chile | University | Chile | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.0 |
| University of Cape Town | University | South Africa | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 |
| University of Texas at Austin | University | United States | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 |
| Karolinska Institutet | University | Sweden | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.4 |
| 2BK Arkitekter | Company | Sweden | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.3 |
| The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts | University | Denmark | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.3 |
| Umeå University | University | Sweden | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.3 |
| University of Northumbria at Newcastle | University | United Kingdom | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.3 |
| Mälardalen University College | University College | Sweden | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.2 |
| University College London | University | United Kingdom | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.2 |
| Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB) | University | Indonesia | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.2 |
| Stockholms läns landsting | Other health services | Sweden | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.2 |
| Swedish Work Environment Authority | Other Public | Sweden | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.2 |
| Gävle University College | University College | Sweden | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.2 |
| Imperial College London | University | United Kingdom | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 |
| Trilateral Res | NA | United Kingdom | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 |
| Univ Arts | University | United Kingdom | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 |
| UNIV PARIS 09 | NA | France | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 |
| University of Edinburgh | University | United Kingdom | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 |
| Delft University of Technology | University | Netherlands | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 |
| University of Gothenburg | University | Sweden | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 |
| University of Porto | University | Portugal | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 |
| Publication Year | Publications | Open Access publications | OA gold | OA hybrid | OA green | OA bronze | Not OA | Share OA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 16.7% |
| 2015 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 33.3% |
| 2016 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 40.0% |
| 2017 | 13 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 38.5% |
| 2018 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 60.0% |
| 2019 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 60.0% |
| 2020 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 33.3% |
| Total | 45 | 19 | 10 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 26 | 42.2% |
The Open Access type of the publications was fetched from the Unpaywall REST API. The method to determine the OA type is presented here.
In summary, the different OA types can be described as follows:
Gold: The full text has been found on a publisher website, in a journal that is fully OA.
Hybrid: The full text has been found on a publisher website, in a journal that is not fully OA.
Green: The full text has been found in an institutional repository, such as DiVA.
Bronze: The full text has been found on a publisher website but no OA license could be identified.
N.B.: This table is based on peer-reviewed publications for which Unpaywall could determine the OA type (necessary condition: have a DOI number). Unpaywall’s method is empirical and does not strictly equate to copyright license. As a consequence, the OA status of a given publication may vary with time — for example turning from “Not OA” to “Green” when a full text is added to DiVA.
| Publication Year | Publications | Total Citations | Average Citations | Uncited publications | Share uncited |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | 2.4 | 6.6 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| 2015 | 5.2 | 14.5 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 60.1% |
| 2016 | 3.6 | 11.5 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 31.4% |
| 2017 | 9.0 | 22.0 | 2.4 | 6.0 | 66.7% |
| 2018 | 3.7 | 15.2 | 4.1 | 1.0 | 27.0% |
| 2019 | 6.8 | 14.6 | 2.1 | 4.2 | 62.1% |
| 2020 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 1.4 | 1.0 | 68.6% |
| Total | 32.3 | 86.6 | 2.7 | 16.5 | 51.2% |
| Publication years | Publications | Average FWCI | Top 10% publications | Share Top 10% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-2016 | 10.2 | 0.64 | 0.2 | 2.5% |
| 2015-2017 | 14.4 | 0.64 | 0.8 | 5.2% |
| 2016-2018 | 13.4 | 0.81 | 0.9 | 6.5% |
| 2017-2019 | 15.5 | 0.77 | 1.0 | 6.2% |
| Total | 25.6 | 0.72 | 1.2 | 4.7% |
This table is based on Scopus publication types Article, Review and Conference Paper.
Rows are based on at least 17 (full counted) publications with poor Web of Science coverage (at least 47.5%).
(DiVA publication type Article, peer review)
Indicators based on < 50 publications are considered unreliable
| Publication years | Publications | Average SNIP | Publications in Top 20% journals | Share Top 20% journals |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-2016 | 9.2 | 0.56 | 1.2 | 13.6% |
| 2015-2017 | 11.4 | 0.62 | 1.8 | 15.3% |
| 2016-2018 | 10.9 | 0.81 | 1.9 | 17.2% |
| 2017-2019 | 10.0 | 1.22 | 4.5 | 44.8% |
| 2018-2020 | 5.7 | 1.78 | 4.4 | 76.8% |
| Total | 19.6 | 0.94 | 6.2 | 31.4% |
| Publication years | Publications | Corporate co-publications | Share corporate | International co-publications | Share international |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-2016 | 17 | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 11.8% |
| 2015-2017 | 27 | 0 | 0.0% | 4 | 14.8% |
| 2016-2018 | 26 | 0 | 0.0% | 6 | 23.1% |
| 2017-2019 | 30 | 1 | 3.3% | 7 | 23.3% |
| 2018-2020 | 19 | 2 | 10.5% | 6 | 31.6% |
| Total | 50 | 2 | 4.0% | 10 | 20.0% |
This table is based on Scopus publication types Article, Review and Conference Paper.
Rows are based on at least 17 (full counted) publications with poor Web of Science coverage (at least 54.8%).
(DiVA publication type Article, peer review)
Indicators based on < 50 publications are considered unreliable
